MORE STRATEGERY--GAMBIT #2 (GWB and immigration)

I can understand the outrage and the alarm with which most Conservatives view the influx of illegal aliens into the United States because I share a lot of it myself. My personal view of the problem is quite similar to theirs: Illegal aliens: round them up and deport them. No mollycoddling, no freebies, no instant citizenship for babies born this side of the border. Round them up. Deport them. Repeat as necessary. Why can't this President see and understand that this is all we need to do?

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why some people got so exercised by the President's immigration proposals. Upset enough, they say, that they will withhold their votes from George W. Bush in the upcoming election. Granted, the proposals sounded like he wanted to give away the store and everything in it, but after consideration and auditing of a lot of discussions on the topic, it looks more like he is trying to get a handle on the monstrous immigration problems he inherited from the previous administration.

The outraged reactions of Conservative pundits and voters appear to indicate that the proposals seem to be Executive Orders, a "done deal" the minute they are signed, with no chance for any of us to protest or have any say in the matter at all. But such is not the case. The proposals are just that, something proposed for further discussion and discovery. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the process of lawmaking in the United States, I offer this very abbreviated and incomplete schedule of the passage of a bill from proposal to publication.

First, a sponsor will have to be found in the Senate or the House, who then has to compose the bill and present it. Then it has to be voted on, then sent to at least one committee. If they think it is important enough, the committee will convene public hearings on the bill, to gather opinion and information. After the sponsors collect the information they need, the proposals will either be killed, or they will be sent to the House with instructions to craft a bill for final vote. There is every possibility in the world that the law that comes out in the final process will bear little or no resemblance to the proposals the President put forth.

When it comes out of committee (if it ever does) it gets voted on again, then sent to the Senate, where the process is repeated, amendments are added, etc. Then it gets returned to the originating house for crafting into the final bill, then passed or not passed, then finally sent to the President's desk. If he looks at it and says, "This bears no resemblance to my proposals and I can't sign it," and "picks up his veto pen," the piece of legislation goes back to the originating house for an override vote. If the President's veto is overridden, the law becomes law. If the veto is not overridden, then it is killed. It can be killed in committee, as well, as it is making its way through the process. Then, it can either be re-introduced under another name or left to die.

Just the process itself can take many months, even years, if committee members are hostile to the proposal. In this event, there isn't much hope for its passage as it was proposed. Judging from the behavior of most of the electorate who have responded, and many of the Representatives and Senators, the President's immigration proposals will probably face a future of disembowelling, drawing and quartering, and eventual total destruction. But that is often what happens to bills placed in the "Hopper."

We have seen before the careful attention to the details of the game of Strategery as played by this Administration. My gut instinct is that we have just observed a masterful move with these proposals. Simply put, the President sent up a trial balloon, testing the real opinions of the electorate. By taking his proposals before the whole country, he receives much swifter opinion and input than if he had merely written it out and had it submitted in the Hopper of the House of Representatives. He gets all of it out into the open, leaving little room for speculation on unrevealed aspects of his proposals.

If I could venture a guess as to the strategic direction of these proposals, it would be this: First, GWB is making good on another election promise. In the process, he is also getting Congress primed to go over the proposals with a fine-toothed comb, selecting one thing as useful and another thing as useless, with an eye to possible lawmaking and perhaps a beginning to the unravelling of the Gordian Knot of immigration problems in the U. S. And, he gets the political benefits of moving undecided Democrats whose pet projects revolve around immigration closer to his side of the board.

Many "Conservatives" appear to have been waiting to pounce on President Bush for anything they perceive as a danger to the Constitution. I am not defending the proposals, don't get me wrong. But I am saying that before we shoot ourselves in the feet by withholding our votes from the President in November, we should wait and allow this latest move in Strategery to play itself out. There is more at stake in this election than just punishing the President for what we perceive as deceit and stupidity.

There is also more to these proposals than meets the eye, as happens more often than not with GWB. He is a masterful strategist, and I think this is just the gambit. I can hardly wait to see this one unfold.

______________________________
(If you don't already have a copy, I suggest you write to your Congressman or Senator and ask for a copy of "How Our Laws Are Made," which explains the entire process of lawmaking from proposal to final vote and publication.)

The president is an elected official.How else would you get an elected officials ear unless you let him/her know that you won't be voting for them if/when they come up with a stupid proposal?Somehow,I don't think telling them we'll vote for them no matter what,because they happen to have an (R) next to their name is going to be enough to keep them in check.It's the way politics work.We can't all sit back and let everything go through without voicing our concern or opinion.

"Hm....very funny. We have a president that understands you have to be re-elected in order to prevent the Democrats from destroying what the GOP supports, to keep the tax cuts, to have a chance to have fewer unborns slaughtered and to keep the U.N. from ruling America...You might want to see exactly which of the two parties represents your interests and put aside the revenge angle."

Firstly, Dubya, by granting asylum and amnesty to Illegal Invaders is de facto letting internationalism (i.e. the UN agenda) supercede U.S. sovereignty; Secondly, should Dubya become "merely" neutral on the abortion issue, just how would you feel then about supporting him? Thirdly, regarding the issue of "tax cuts," how do you suppose we'll be paying for the $87b already earmarked for Iraq, $15b for AIDS Africa, $8b for Teddy Kennedy's NEA; The fiscal nightmare of granting amnesty and citizenship to Illegal Invader; the Martian Exploration Program; the Senior Healthcare Plan and whatever else social plans Dubya has in store for us?

What we've got here pardner is a Party with an agenda which will adjust (read "sell-out") traditional conservative issues to co-op the Center of the political spectrum. At the rate the GOP is going, don't expect Gun Rights, the Pro-Life position, pro-sovereignty (I forgot --check that off the list), and fiscal conservatism to remain part and parcel of the national GOP platform in the near future, and why should it? Where will you and I go? To the Democrats??

You may be right on some parts but ----

Bush feels very strongly about abortion so I don't expect a sellout - he wants conservative judges!

And - I don't see any other candidate that would stand as firm against the onslaught of those wanting the U.N. to control America as Bush. Remember Kyoto? Remember the war in Iraq. The whole world was against Bush in any number of issues and he took up for America and our safety first. And you discount that as nothing?

You want to trust your future and the future of your children to democrats because you are "afraid" of a sellout by the GOP? What utter nonsense.

Just listen to the democrats and look at what they have done - starting with the attempted theft of the 2000 election by Gore, the filibuster of the judge confirmations (in effect changing the constitution), the total pacification doctrine which means no protection for Americans - just slaughter when the terrorists chose.

Look at the constant onslaught about environment - which, in effect, turns over control of American lands to international environs. Look at the destruction of the integrity of the mainstream media - instead of reporting news - they interpret the news, pick and choose to suit their personal political views and edit it for the populace.

Look at the onslaught against religion and freedom of speech in America (politically correct rules, racial baiting, removal of any mention of God in any aspects of American life they can).

And - and one of the most important - look at the attacks AGAINST pre-emptive strikes against those that can (at their discretion) slaughter hunderds of thousands of Americans. The democrats demand the initial slaughter of these hundred thousands of Americans before they will approach the U.N. to see if ok for America to respond.

No - think I will stick with those that defend America, defend religion and religious freedom, defend our soveignity and support business and economic growth and those that will stand up for America no matter how politically it affects them.

But, you have the right to sell America out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.